moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Don BoudriaLiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a few minutes you will be hearing two statements by ministers and replies from the other parties.

Traditionally, the government provides copies of ministers' statements to members, members on the other side of the House, and this was done.

Less than an hour after one of these documents was provided to the opposition, the opposition spokesperson was giving interviews to the media in connection with the document. At that time, moreover, phone calls were made to the office of the minister, seeking his reaction to the statements made by the opposition, which had just scooped the announcement to be made by the minister the following day.

If ministers are supposed to reserve their statements for the House, out of courtesy, parliamentarians must respect embargoes.

This must be put to the House immediately, in order to avoid any repetition of such an occurrence. Otherwise, we shall have to resort to doing the strict minimum, which is to provide copies of statements an hour before they are tabled.

That is what the standing orders require, but the convention has been to try to do more than that, in the spirit of cooperation. This is not possible, however, unless everyone respects the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I was just talking to the government House leader. I just learned about this a short while ago. I certainly agree with the House leader that this is a process that has happened for a long time and it should be respected.

The member involved is not here today. It is still a little early on the west coast but I am doing my best to reach that member. I am sure he will want to apologize to the minister if in fact this is what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to that of my colleagues and say to the minister that I share his opinion.

The minister can continue to do what has already been done here, in the House—if apologies are offered then we will see—that is, to put this question to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because we have already criticized similar behaviour by ministers of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to point out that if the House leader for the government maintains that the information was circulated in advance of the release and somebody released it to the media, it certainly could not have been the NDP because we were not given the courtesy of receiving any advance information regarding either of these bills. Therefore, for the record, the NDP did not release this information.

Mr. Speaker, I also agree with what the government House leader said. Statements given to us for a response must be held in secret until they are tabled in the House.

However, let me say to the government House leader that this works both ways. It also works in relation to committees.

Yesterday morning in the House a report in relation to the coast guard was tabled. Yesterday morning, before the report was tabled, I read interviews in the newspaper that were done on the report by government members saying that the Liberals were pressing the government. The Liberals had very little to do with it. It has to work both ways.

I believe these interventions send a very clear message. The Chair most certainly agrees that the previous collaboration should continue. Each party must be responsible and respect the unwritten rule; if a document has not been tabled in the House, it is to remain secret.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure, as you know, that I table today the Public Service Modernization Act.

Each and every member of this House is here for the same reason: to serve Canadians. The Government serves Canadians, here at home and abroad, largely through the work of a competent, professional public service. This bill ensures the capacity of the public service to provide the best services to Canadians today and in the future, to continue to make important contributions to the quality of life of Canadians.

In the Speech From the Throne on January 30, 2001, the Government committed to “—the reforms needed for the Public Service of Canada to...[be] able to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians in the 21st century”.

The Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management was established in April that year, with a mandate to recommend a modern policy, legislative and institutional framework for human resources management.

The bill fulfills that commitment and that mandate. It is a critical step in the ongoing process of public service modernization, providing the foundation needed to allow the public service to attract, retain and develop the people it needs and to maintain a healthy and productive workplace to serve Canadians.

The bill would make major changes to the current legislative framework underpinning human resources management in the public service. It includes two new acts, a new public service employment act and a new public service labour relations act, and amends the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act.

We live in a constantly evolving world. The current legislation governing human resources management has changed little over the past three decades and no longer permits us to meet new challenges.

Our world has changed greatly over that period. Public service work is becoming more and more complex and fast paced. It requires employees and managers to be more flexible and to adapt to varying demands and circumstances.

Technological advances and globalization are contributing to an accelerated pace of change, one that challenges the innovative capacity of the public service. The public service cannot fall behind if it is to serve effectively.

The public's expectations of government will continue to increase. Citizens are demanding not only better services, but also more efficient management of resources and a greater level of participation in making decisions.

Competition for talent with the private sector and with other governments is going to intensify in an increasingly tight labour market. Large numbers of public servants are expected to retire over the next decade and will need to be replaced.

The public service will have to respond. We must give the public service the tools it needs to meet these challenges.

The bill is a comprehensive and carefully measured package of proposals. It represents a balanced approach, establishing the foundation needed to allow the public service to change the way it does its business and compete effectively to attract and retain the people it needs.

It provides for increased flexibility in staffing and managing people to help achieve results and meet new operational requirements better, combined with reinforced safeguards to protect merit in staffing and address possible abuses in the system.

The bill also provides for more co-operative labour-management relations to support a healthy, productive workplace while ensuring that the government can continue to manage the public service in the public interest. It supports more coherent training and development for employees to help them pursue their professional development and ensure that they have the skills and knowledge they need to do their jobs now and in the future.

It also clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the key players in human resources management—the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and deputy heads—with new measures to strengthen accountability at all levels, including better reporting to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, these are important goals—indeed, they are important requirements—in the modernization of the public service and public service management. They must be realized to ensure that the public service will continue to be able to serve Canadians with excellence into the 21st century.

This Bill provides the foundation for the transformation of public service management. It is with pleasure that I will work with all members of this House to improve the way in which we manage public service employees, with the ultimate objective of providing the best possible services for our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and acknowledge, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance and the taxpayer, that the minister has made a positive statement of intent in the tabling of the public service modernization act.

We must ensure that we truly have a modern, flexible human resource management. In our party we have always valued the dedicated work of government employees, who have often, over the years, had to work under poor political leadership and uncertainty that their jobs would be eliminated in another reorganization of a ministry.

All members in the House are aware of past confrontational styles of union-management relations and even a controlling work culture. It is not a healthy sign when many employees have their union contract book as the most prominent document on their desks.

I am mindful of the debate in the House last evening where my caucus colleagues were pleading with the government, on behalf of public servants, for basic whistleblower protection for average employees. Many examples were given in the debate where dedicated employees have done their duties to observe and report significant problems and even wrongdoing to then later find out that it was particularly embarrassing to the government. It was the dutiful worker who was disciplined or dismissed rather than the public interest being served.

We are mindful of the evaluation of the Auditor General in 2001. The quote is:

The legislative and management framework for public service recruitment requires radical change to ensure that new systems and practices will be more responsive to both the operational requirements of departments and the long term needs of the public service.

I am pleased to hear that the minister is trying to improve both the culture of government service and the local climate of the workplace for our loyal public employees. This is being done for both productivity and for service to the country.

I am pleased to hear of the reaffirmation of ongoing quality training. Moreover, it is hoped that the new measures to strengthen accountability at all levels, including better reporting to Parliament, will indeed be delivered.

Being a government employee should be seen as an honourable and rewarding career choice. Canada should be able to attract its brightest and best into public service. We will be able to do this if the context is thoroughly professional, the standards are high and the personal rewards of compensation and workplace meaning are significant.

It is hoped that as we examine the details and the implications of this bill that we can eventually can get to the point that we have a collaborative union-management culture where the public interest of Canada comes first and that it will be freely given rather than coerced. We need a climate of respect and, above all, a consciousness of the taxpayer for all government activity in whose name we all perform.

I am pleased to hear that the minister is open to some adjustments to the bill as the need may emerge during the legislative process at the committee stage. In response, our party will not be confrontational for partisan considerations. As a true government in waiting, the last thing we would contemplate from our side is to play politics with the lives of public service employees. However there are concerns about continued geographic discrimination and hiring, and the unwise use of affirmative action policies.

Canada is a great country. Moreover, working in the Canadian federal public service is quite good in comparison to the situation for employees of governments around the world. Nevertheless, things could be much better. There is no reason why Canada cannot become the best by receiving the best from its very best. It is all under our own control within our own borders. It is up to us.

Canada is great, not because we have had great leaders or great governments but because of average Canadians who have built this society and have sacrificed when called upon to make our country a better place to live. Public employees have worked to secure the nation. They strive to build a stable foundation despite unstable times.

The minister now implies that there will be a positive break with the past. We in the official opposition will perform our constructive part to ensure that positive values are reflected in the legislation.

We look forward to being completely engaged in this honourable project that the President of the Treasury Board has brought to the House this day.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister for having taken the initiative to make this change to legislation that has not been amended for at least 35 years. Clearly, this legislation needed to be updated. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will participate in improving this bill.

During the briefing we got this morning, we could, unfortunately, already see the bill's shortcomings. However, the minister told us that she is willing to consider all amendments in order to improve the bill.

I think that, as far as public servants are concerned, it is not just a bill that will bring about this change. The new management needs to be improved so much that they might as well start from scratch.

The bill will at least provide us with a point of reference against which to compare the existing relationships between the employer, the government and the unions. The workers themselves are the most important of all. They should, at least, be able to be proud, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, of competently delivering services. These are services for the public. They are the reason that public servants are paid and that we pay taxes.

Public servants and senior management must be able to give their views. Of course, a very important provision, to protect whistle-blowers, is missing from this bill. There is nothing in the bill that allows public servants to do their job properly.

I say this because, this week again, the person responsible for informatics refused to answer the questions put to her, saying that the minister responsible would provide the answers. She is, however, one of the managers in charge of this issue.

It is essential to clearly protect these people who could provide us with the information we need, and that they not fear doing so, so that this information can be provided to the public.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will participate actively in the work of the committee. The committee will certainly study the bill in question in the hope that this legislation will bring about a change in culture, that there will be fewer political appointments, and that people will be judged on their abilities, so that the public service is truly active and responsible.

Mr. Speaker, this could be a big day for Canada's 150,000 civil servants. Reform has never been so urgent as it is today. This has been a long awaited and a much ballyhooed announcement by the minister. I compliment the President of the Treasury Board for this ambitious undertaking.

When it was first announced nearly two years ago, many of us rolled our eyes and shook our heads in disbelief. Many of us have seen frustrated attempts to impose a change in culture in the civil service. We have seen these attempts come and go over the years. However I have confidence this time that we may be able to make meaningful changes. These are not just bureaucratic changes. These changes will be enshrined in legislation. The House of Commons will be seized with the issue and politicians will be involved, not just bureaucrats.

Perhaps it is this President of the Treasury Board who may bring these changes through because of the sensibilities she brings from the province of Quebec where unions are recognized as an integral part of civil society. They are not struggling for recognition as they are in the world of the Canadian Alliance. Unions play a meaningful part in this whole process.

I made the point that reform has never been so necessary. The civil service--

The civil service is justifiably demoralized after years of the madness of program review. Thirty thousand jobs were slashed. There were seven years of wage freezes. The previous president of the Treasury Board took $30 billion out of the public service pension plan surplus without any consultation with employees who owned that money. Confidence is at a new all time low. Productivity is down and so is morale. All these issues need to be addressed.

I am relieved and pleased to hear that a new Public Service Labour Relations Act will be imposed. When public employees won the right to free collective bargaining in 1967, there was never a proper labour relations regime imposed at that time. Therefore the massive public service has been floundering in a grey zone with no clear definition of how the collective bargaining regime should be operated, short of putting it under the Canada Labour Code. We are optimistic that a new labour relations act will finally give satisfaction to many of these long outstanding issues.

We in the NDP will be paying close attention to the bill as it moves forward. We hope that the recommendations of the Fryer commission, a long comprehensive study that took place leading up to the introduction of the bill, will be included in the bill. We will look for these changes. We do not want to just tinker with the act. We want to make substantive changes that will change the lives, the quality of work life and job satisfaction, which is so important if we are to expect productivity in the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today in response to the President of the Treasury Board who has brought forward what I believe to be very positive proposed legislation which neither I nor my party have had an opportunity to look at yet. The public service modernization act is something that is direly needed in the House and could assist in developing a public sector within government.

First, I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for making the statement in the House. I heard the House leader of the government cry crocodile tears when he suggested that some of the information was perhaps put forward prior to the minister's statement. That statement should have been made here and dealt with in the House. However I should also say I have seen too many statements and too many ministers of the Crown make public statements at a press conference as opposed to in the House. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for doing it in the right place, at the right time, and I thank her for that.

There is a very simple philosophy. Too many people in our society today view a public servant as being an individual who has a government job and is just walking through the motions. That is not the case. I can assure everyone that as a member of Parliament I deal with the employees of the public service on a regular basis. For the most part, the majority of them are there for the right reasons. They want to do a job on behalf of Canadians. They have a job, they have an outline of what they are responsible for and they try their darndest under those circumstances to ensure Canadians are served to the best of their ability.

For the most part public servants certainly are there for the right reasons. However I also follow a management philosophy that I learned a long time ago in another life; that direction comes from the top. Direction comes from their political masters. That is perhaps something that is missing in the legislation. Too often the public servants, and the public service, are the ones who take the brunt and the controversy for positions taken by the departments, the ministers particularly, and managerial positions of a higher level than the individuals providing the service. Unfortunately, in the past the government has gone down the wrong path.

I can talk about things like the gun registry. This is a policy of the government and it has been terribly mismanaged. Do not blame the public servants. Blame the leaders, the political masters, for that particular direction.

I can talk about the HRDC. Decisions were made not by the public servants who were supposed to manage those portfolios but by the political masters who sent them down the wrong path.

I think of the sponsorship scandals. An individual, who is no longer with us in the House, was given a reward by being sent to another country, but the public servants took the brunt of that.

I thank the minister for bringing forward perhaps some legislation that could put better into place some protections for those public servants as opposed to having to take the brunt for political masters.

I also am very pleased with some of the broad outlines as put forward today by the minister. Of course the public servants should have the ability to compete with private sector compensation packages. There is no question about it. We have to get the brightest and the best to ensure that we provide the best services to Canadians, and that is by way of compensation packages.

We have the labour management relationships. From another life again, I can honestly take great pride in suggesting that the best labour management relationship is one that is working toward the same goal. Yes, there will be disagreements, but sit at the table and make those disagreements go away so that everyone achieves a win-win situation. That is very positive. We have not seen that in the past. It is important that we develop those relationships, ones that are better than what they are currently. I and my colleagues will be very happy to sit at the table, to sit in committee and to listen to the positive aspects of this legislation going forward.

There are others things such as whistleblowing, as was mentioned. That is something with which we have to deal. We need to have some protections in place for those people who come forward for the betterment of the public service.

Again, I congratulate the minister and look forward to working with her at committee to ensure that we put the best legislation forward on behalf of the public service.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words regarding the Canadian Coast Guard's diving program in British Columbia.

As we know, on August 13, 2002, a tragic accident involving the Cap Rouge II claimed the lives of five people off the coast of British Columbia. Since that time I have shared with Canadians, and indeed with the House, the information and advice I received from officials about the Canadian Coast Guard's role in the incident and the dive policy in general.

Before I go further I would like to thank the leaders from all parties, and in particular the government House leader, for ensuring that the incident of the leak of the statement yesterday was indeed a single occurrence that will not be repeated and that we can continue with confidence in matters such as these.

We have undertaken a comprehensive review of the program in order to gain a full and complete picture of it. Today, as a result of this work, I am announcing that we are implementing a full time, full service, dive program at Sea Island in British Columbia.

The program will include a full dive team and backup team 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and will allow divers to enter submerged vehicles and vessels.

While we have always provided 24/7 rescue services overall, diving has been available on a limited basis. Today's announcement means that we will be working toward providing diving services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to match our overall rescue services and give citizens in the area more comprehensive coverage.

The new dive program complements the Coast Guard's search and rescue program that is second to none in the world, while at the same time providing for the safety of our divers.

As I was saying a few moments ago, I am convinced that we have reviewed all the measures associated with the program since the tragic accident in August, and we have examined all the possibilities for maintaining the diving services at Sea Island.

We have also taken into account the advice we have received with regard to the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Labour Code.

We are also endeavouring to thoroughly review to what extent additional skills would be applicable for providing support services for dives that require entry into submerged vehicles or vessels.

Truth be told, it is a complex issue that involves numerous pieces of legislation, codes and directives, as well as various federal partners and skills. The implementation of an integrated diving program will take time.

We are going to have to recruit more divers and ensure that all divers receive the necessary training and equipment to perform their duties.

In the meantime, until we have the necessary staff and the services are well established, the Coast Guard will continue to provide search and rescue services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the sector.

I would like to assure the House that the Canadian Coast Guard's top priority remains the same as it has always been, to protect the lives of Canadians at sea. Nothing will change.

At the same time, it is imperative that our procedures are compliant with the laws that are in place to protect all Canadians, including our divers. That is why I have taken action and made an important first step toward meeting these goals and giving British Columbians the diving services they value.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House, that my commitment to sharing information on this matter will continue as we implement the full service, full time dive program at Sea Island, British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to review some of the events that have led the minister to make the decision and announcement he has made in the House today.

Make no mistake, the minister would not be making these changes to the Coast Guard if fatal accidents had not forced him to take a closer look at the irresponsible cuts his department made to the funding of our Coast Guard and its rescue dive operations.

On February 16, 2001, the then minister of fisheries cancelled the rescue dive team. Two days later, Paul Sandhu died after his car plunged into the Fraser River, only 400 metres from the dive team's home base. The dive team came to the scene but were ordered not to dive. Not long afterward, the minister of fisheries ordered a review of his decision to cancel the rescue dive team.

On July 19, 2001, the fisheries minister reinstated the dive team but not as a rescue dive team. Divers were only allowed to retrieve someone floating on the surface. As a result, those trapped in submerged fishing vessels were to be written off. The divers protested. They wanted no part of it. They claimed that the rules now meant that the only person they would be able to rescue would be someone who had fallen off a dock. Divers were told to follow orders and shut up.

An internal directive on the new no dive policy dated September 3, 2001, stated:

...procedures have been written to comply exactly with the Minister's announcement...Penetration of submerged...vessels is prohibited, exactly as stated in the signed off Fleet Safety Manual...

This is not open to interpretation, Mr. Speaker. It continues:

I would expect...divers to support our efforts to meet the requirements of the Minister's announcement as quickly as possible.

On August 13, 2002, when the Cap Rouge II went down with the loss of five lives including a mother and her two children, the minister said that the dive team ought to have known they could have dived.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. First, the directive of September 3, 2001, made it abundantly clear there was to be no diving because the minister had ordered that there be none. Second, our Coast Guard divers could not have safely dived because their surface air equipment had been disposed of. They were forced to rely on air tanks which ran out of supply shortly after arriving at the site.

The Coast Guard talking points on the Cap Rouge II incident made it very clear that the Coast Guard did not believe in rescue diving. They state:

Resources must be put where they will do the most good. --It's absolutely clear that a dollar spent on prevention or surface rescue activities will do more, by far, to save lives than a dollar spent on diving.

I hope that is not the message to the next person who is trapped in an overturned fishing vessel.

Today, the minister does not want to be held to account. He claims we should only look at his latest promises for the future. The truth is that after those two tragedies the government would have us believe that this time it is actually going to reinstate the rescue dive team.

Well, it is not so; not yet anyway. The fleet safety manual has been partially changed, but it only allows rescue dives to submerged vessels when divers have been given surface air equipment to do those dives and have been trained to use it.

While the surface air equipment has now arrived, training will not be completed for at least six months. We do not yet have a rescue dive team that is back in the business of doing rescue dives. We only have promises.

When the rescue dive team is called to the scene of an accident, our divers must have the training and equipment to make the dives and must have the authority to make that dive. I am not sure we are there yet. I pray we will be soon.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not offer in his statement an apology to the families of those who died aboard the Cap Rouge II as a result of the funding decisions taken by his department. There was no apology offered to the divers who were ordered not to dive and who the minister publicly claimed could have dived if they had known the rules.

In closing, lives have been lost and the Coast Guard's rescue divers have been tortured by memories of events. It is high time the government once again put a priority on saving lives.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated earlier, it is important to remember that the initiative announced today by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans follows the loss of five lives on August 13, 2002, when the Cap Rouge II capsized off the coast of British Columbia.

It is indeed a good initiative, but it is unfortunate that a tragic accident had to happen before the department took action and the Government of Canada decided to invest in a training program for divers. This program will help respond to this kind of emergency in the future.

We will recall that, in November, we had a take note debate on the Canadian Coast Guard. Its underfunding was widely commented on at the time.

I feel that this organization has deficiencies, not because of the services its provides—services the people of Quebec and Canada know little about, I might add—but because of its underfunding, which is chronic. Because of the cuts made over time, the Canadian Coast Guard has become an organization with problems that need to be addressed urgently.

What happened on September 11, while it was a tragedy, was a wake up call for Canada, bringing home the important role played by the Canadian Coast Guard. Canada realized that this is an essential organization and that it is underfunded.

I congratulate the minister on the initiative he has put forward today, but I should point out that this initiative is not providing any new money to the Canadian Coast Guard. The funding earmarked for the new program, that is $300,000 now and $1 million a year thereafter, does not represent new money. It means that the CCG will have to shoulder additional costs of $1 million without money being added to its budget.

I would like to support the minister in his initiative. I hope that the Minister of Finance will invest more in the Canadian Coast Guard. This would ensure that this organization is well structured, will have the resources to operate and will be able to respond to emergencies and to the needs of the public in Canada and Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal NDP, as well as the provincial NDP of British Columbia, to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his initiative today. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Richmond. My former home town of Sea Island is in his riding. I know that many people there are very pleased with the announcement today, but we still have some concerns.

Out of every tragedy, one hopes that something can be learned from it, that we can learn from the mistakes and ensure that if another tragedy happens, which in all likelihood will, the dive team in this specific case will be able to perform its function adequately and with enough resources and trained personnel in order to prevent these types of incidents from happening again.

What the minister has failed to mention is the fact that this is a reallocation of resources within the department, a department that is already starved for financial and personnel resources. That is something we have great difficulty with because this is a very important aspect of the Coast Guard. We are pleased that he has made this announcement, but what other part of the Coast Guard will have to suffer because of the transfer of allocation of resources?

We on this side of the House would encourage and support the minister wholeheartedly in his discussions with the finance minister to ensure that the Coast Guard and DFO for that matter receive the adequate resources and personnel they need to carry out the functions that they so heartily deserve for the protection of all Canadians.

We support the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for this initiative. We support the government in ensuring safety, especially in the area of Sea Island. We support the minister in acquiring future resources for the Coast Guard and DFO and to ensure that the union is fully aware of all the concerns relating to this. We want to ensure it stays within the public service of the Coast Guard. We want to ensure that not only in this area but in other aspects of the country the Coast Guard is fully prepared to meet its obligations in terms of safety for all mariners.

Again, we thank the hon. minister and encourage him to continue with this practice. We will be there to support him in any way that we can.

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the minister on this initiative today. Certainly it is something that all of us in the House have looked forward to and appreciate his doing.

Let me also congratulate him on making his statement here in the House. I think it is extremely important, which was said earlier in relation to a statement made by the minister responsible for the Treasury Board who also came to the House with a statement rather than, as most ministers do, running to the press.

Here we have a chance to respond and discuss so that people across the country get the news firsthand and also can get the views of the other parties in relation to the statement.

Having said that, let me say that the statement we have before us is an extremely positive one. However, there are some concerns. The result that we will see because of the minister's decision came about because of a couple of major accidents in this area, accidents that perhaps would not have occurred if we had had clear cut lines of responsibility and jurisdiction. I think that is probably going to be the minister's greatest challenge. He acknowledges in his statement that there are complexities in relation to the rules and regulations.

The minister himself is not responsible for other departments involved, but government is. When we have rules and regulations that govern different departments, and when one department might be held up in making a decision because of the effect on some other department's legislation or regulation, it can be extremely serious. Also, it is so easy then to pass on the blame. The initiative is on government to make sure that there are clear-cut jurisdictions, particularly when it comes to life and death situations.

Also in relation to that, it is imperative that decisions in such a case be made on site. We cannot afford in a life saving situation to wait for somebody to contact Ottawa, not to say an office next door. If firemen go to fight a fire or policemen go to a dangerous situation, the decisions are made by somebody in charge on site. They do not try to call St. John's or Ottawa or Halifax to get permission to make a move to save somebody's life. These decisions have to be made immediately.

One of the problems that this young, inexperienced minister faces, and I know that he is willing to learn, is that he has a major bureaucracy in Ottawa. Too many decisions are made down the street here by people who have no idea of what is going on in the regions.

I suggest to the minister that more power should be given to the regions, with more decision making authority within the regions for responsible people who know what is going on in the regions. Then situations such as those we have experienced, which caused him to make the decision today, will never happen again.

Having said that, I congratulate the minister on the initiative. He can only work with what he has and hopefully we will see other changes which will benefit the people who work in the Coast Guard and particularly the residents of Canada themselves.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government could inform the House when the Prime Minister will be reporting to the House on his meetings yesterday with the premiers and territorial leaders concerning health funding. Since he has not risen in his place today, should we expect a statement tomorrow?

The Prime Minister owes an explanation to the House and the people we represent--

No, I am sorry. That is not a point of order. As tradition goes, I take it for granted that he will be here this afternoon. Questions will be asked and the Prime Minister will then supply the House and the Canadian public with the answers on health care.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, your committee has conducted a study and held hearings on the role and responsibilities of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in developments in the area of Official Languages in Canada. On Tuesday, February 4 it agreed to report it.

The report contains five recommendations, three of which are essentially directed at the CRTC and two at the government, on which we are calling, pursuant to the Standing Orders, to table a response within the required period.